[Foundation-l] A dangerous precedent

Birgitte SB birgitte_sb at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 28 18:38:18 UTC 2007

--- Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I am not quite getting all emails through so this is
> reconstructed from the archive:
> Arnomane said:
> On independence of Wikipedia communities:
> * A Wikipedia that generates interwikis to such 
> contentless articles en masse 
> destroys one of our common strengths: Our cool 
> interwiki system.

Certainly there must be another option for protecting
the interwiki system than becoming an admin in a wiki
you have no inherent interest in developing to delete
articles against the local consensus.  I cannot agree
that interwiki bloat is such priority that it demands
a solution so radical as that.

> * Furthermore they challenge the reputation of the >
whole international 
> Wikipedia community to outsiders.

This is hardly the first time for such a challenge.  I
suggest you follow the successful example of what was
done when en.WP was blocking non-latin usernames which
was certainly a challenge to international reputation.
[1] [2] I can't see the vo.WP issue as beeing a larger
challenge to general reputation than the any of the
top 10 issues that have come from en.WP.  So I cannot
support a more radical handling of vo.WP than en.WP
has recieved for "internationally" unpopular

> * And above all. There are some unchangeable rules >
in every Wikipedia imposed 
> by the Wikimedia Foundation. One of them is NPOV 
 > and vo.wikipedia in its 
> current stage simply has no chance to get somewhere
> near NPOV because of 
> their methods choosen.

With NPOV concerns we also have precedents.  Look into
how the NPOV concerns for ar.WP were handled.[3]
Certainly a reasonable person cannot think vo.WP is in
a worse state of bias than those complaints and
therefore deserves a more radical reaction than they
were given. 

I think I am correct to say that many people opposing
you are not arguing that vo.WP is 100% correct in what
they have done and how they have responded to
concerns. Rather many people are opposing you because
your proposal is *extremely radical* and the issue you
wish to address comparatively less important than
issues that have needed intervention from outside a
community in the past.  The issue at hand does not in
any way merit such new precedent of intervention.
Please find a less radical means of addressing your

Birgitte SB


Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 

More information about the foundation-l mailing list